加大醫學中心未經同意使用病患細胞案 - 醫療資訊,議題討論

原本想po兩個美國的醫療過失判例上來，然後分析其中關於
醫療過失的認定標準，作為大家的參考，但是，因為我慣用
的法律搜尋系統找不到我學過的Case，所以，我只好從goo-
gle上找來其中一個Case的case brief，就是我們平常上課的
時候常常被老師要求寫的家庭作業。

這份case brief的作者無法在網路上查到，但是好像是來自
University Casebook的出版商，網址是:

lawschool.mikeshecket.com/torts/moorevtheregentsoftheuniversityofcalifornia.htm

嗯，anyway，這份brief已經讓英美法每學期都在及格邊緣的
我汗顏了...

Moore v. The Regents of the University of California

Supreme Court of California, 1990.
51 Cal.3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal.Rptr. 146.
( Prosser, pp. 188-191 )



Facts: The plaintiff went in for treatment of leukemia. The defendant
used cells from his spleen for profit. The plaintiff sued for
a bunch of stuff including conversion of his spleen cells, lack
of informed consent, and breach of fiduciary[1] duty.


Issue: Does a physician have a duty to inform the patient of his economic
interest in a particular course of treatment?


Rule: A physician must tell the patient if he has personal interests
that may affect his professional judgment. If he fails to do so,
he may be liable for malpractice based on breach of informed consent.


Analysis: The court uses three principles:

1. An adult has the right to control his own body.

2. Consent is only effective if it is informed consent.

3. The doctor must tell you about everything that is material to your
decision to give consent.
Thus, a doctor, in getting your informed consent, must tell you about
all of his interests that may affect his judgment, or else he may be
liable for performing medical procedures without informed consent.
There is a competing interest in withholding information if giving the
information would make a patient make a bad choice. However, the court
feels that this applies only in cases where the doctor is acting solely
in the patient’s best interests. The court finds that this is not the
case here.


Conclusion: A bunch of stuff happens, but essentially the court rules that
there must be a consideration of the merits of the causes of action
for lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty on the
part of the doctor who took the spleen.

--